Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

1 Reply to New Draft
2 New Suggestion
3 New Picture added?
4 Another picture issue
5 For the Record --
6 SSDCA Executive Board Response to Wiki Archive 7 and Proposal for Article
7 Let's move forward, please
8 Health Survey
9 It's Obvious
10 Jareth's draft

Reply to New Draft

In 1992, the SSDCA opened the first Shiloh-only registry

I am not sure where you got this info, but the SSDCA was formed in 1990 (as the parent club for the FIC) It was not incorporated till the summer of 1991 (valid proof can be supplied) and the ISSR was operating under the club until it's incorporation in the summer of 1993, at which time the contract was signed with the TCCP to document all of our data, and continue the processing service. MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC) http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm

In 1997, due to financial difficulties, the SSDCA was closed for a period of time

I have a problem with this too!! I clearly stated in my *private* letters to our club members that I was FED UP WITH THE BS (financial drained, from having to spend over $100,000 of MY money to support a bunch of whiney "breeders" that were selling their pups for thousands of dollars, but refused to help fund the breed promotion!!) that's NOT the same thing as being *broke* ... PLEASE NOTE THAT .... Obviously I stepped back into the picture 5 months later & managed to pick up the pieces & continue to move the club forward ever since!!!

I would agree to *POLITICAL REASONS* and the FACT that the SSDCA *agreed to step aside* ... IT WAS NEVER CLOSED!!!!!!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrTimeline.htm MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The SSDCA was reopened in 1998. More than half of the breeders remained with the ISSDC. In 1998, due to inter-club/registry disagreements, the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr.

Excuse me, but we prepared a DETAILED chart the clearly shows exactly how many "breeders" left!!

http://www.shilohshepherds.info/otherBreeders.htm

I am sure this link has been dropped here several times!!! It clearly shows that ONLY 7 breeders left .. representing only 14.4% of the litters produced ... I would hardly call that "more then half" ;( MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Today, the databases of these registries contain Shiloh pedigrees originating from the ISSR record-keeping database (TCCP), as well as the pedigrees of more than 45,000 GSD ancestors.

This sounds like they have ALL of the TCCP pedigrees .... I can't accept that lie!! They may have *SOME* "pedigrees" but that data consists of AKC dogs that are also listed in the FREE databases all over the Internet! I can accept something like ...

These registries have copies of some ISSR pedigrees, as well as other GSD pedigrees merged in from a public database.   MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that LMX & "pedigree" are not even *spelled* the same way!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/lmxProgramAndTheShilohShepherd.htm MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have put a lot of time into preparing a reply page that would clarify a LOT of the BS that has been presented via the "objections" proposed by MDuffy I certainly hope that the editors here will take the time to visit this link & read the FACTS!!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm MaShiloh 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the time to read this link in it's entirety. It states things very clearly. We all must choose which road we go down. One does not often get to see a breed founder work or see them in the process of inventing a dog, a breed. I choose to stay with the person who's idea it was for these dogs, for I can see that she is not done.

Yes I also see that others think they can take what she has done so far and do better, and therefore other registries are born. Now my question to you is this. If they think they can do better why not give what they are creating a name, for in going their own way they are changing the genetics (not going in the breed founders direction) and therefore changing the end result of the dog.

The stud books are not closed. Only one person gets to decide who is added to those books. That would be the person creating these dogs. That person is Tina Barber the breed founder. I choose to follow the logical path.67.186.153.43 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

Katy, Back in "the day" Tina very clearly set up the breed to exist without her. She was very vocal about the breed "going on" if something happened to her. If the breed was meant to be totally managed by her and her alone, then why would she make a breed standard, and rules and regulations about judging, litter evaluations, temperaments, etc.? If breeders are managing their Shiloh Shepherds to look like and act like what was outlined in the beginning, how is that any different than other breeds? And in case you didn't realize it, the stud books *were closed* up until September '97. They were opened after the first split. So are you saying that if for some reason TB is incapacitated yesterday the breed should be extinct today? WindsongKennels 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One day we will have to get along without her. Thank goodness she has a lot of stuff in writing down. Thank goodness she has set things up so that her daughter can continue her vision and hopefully one day actually achieve this goal. What more can be said? The breed founder is saying this breed is not done yet. It's not there. So nope I'm not saying the breed would not exisit if the worst were to happen to Tina, what I'm saying is it's not here yet. 67.186.153.43 19:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

First of all, when I opened this breed up to the "rare breed" world (in 1990) I had 321 BREEDING quality dogs with enough genepool diversity to build on! Unfortunately I had not anticipated *human nature* and the horrors of dealing with *politics* :>( I was used to normal *breeders* not power hungry fools & immature bleeding hearts that want to snip everything they can't understand!! The first 7 years turned into a nightmare, between "splits" and others running for the hills to avoid *political conflics* and then the BACK ISSUE HYSTERIA (created by gossip) that destroyed nearly 1/2 of the best dogs I had in my genepool... that's when the breed fell so low that it was in danger of extinction!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/historyTheBackIssue.htm

THAT'S why I agreed to step back from the "politics" and just focus on the registry, in order to rebuild what had been lost ... but NO ... *your* little group had better ideas ... just INBREED on what was left, in order to create utopia?? I never hid anything ... it's all documented in our archives!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapSSDCALinks.htm

I also wrote many articles warning people about the foolishness of inbreeding on inbred lines!!! I wasn't bashing anyone ... just trying to educate them!! http://www.shilohshepherds.info/breedingGenetics.htm Yet you all thought you knew *more* then I did .. so you refused to listen, until you started getting all of those health issues .. and then you ran to all kinds of GSD's to *outcross* ... but you still want to call your progeny "Shiloh Shepherds" ... WHY? When in reality, they should be called KING SHEPHERDS!!! MaShiloh 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And regarding the numbers and LMX on the new link above, if you search the Orthopedic Foundation For Animals database for German Shepherds born between 1970 and 1990 you get 23,613 records. There are less than *12* that have Shiloh in their name and out of those twelve, I think half might be from TB. *12* out of the twenty-some thousand that is claimed to have gone into the LMX program is pretty un-verifiable. WindsongKennels 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wendy, you know that the OFA didn't record preliminary (under 2 yr) x-rays back then! If I had you subpoenaed into court, and you were asked (under perjury of law) if you saw the STACKS of x-rays on my dogs ... what would you have to say?? MaShiloh 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say I saw at the most, between your office out in the training center (which should represent 19 years from '74-'93) and the one box from 9/93-5/97, I saw a total of about 400 radiographs +/- 50. That's a far cry from twentysome thousand you claim on your new link. And it's still remarkable that over 19 years of you breeding German Shepherds that only six dogs, six out of the twentysome thousand you claim, are in the OFA database with your kennel name on them.

And regarding your other new link with only six breeders having left, well if you look at your own breeders matrix http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrLicensedBreederMatrix.htm, it shows *81* breeders have left since 1990. You've done a good job at clouding the reasons, but I know the reasons that they all left.

In keeping with the Wiki standards, I am not going to argue with you, I am just stating some verifiable facts, or lack thereof. WindsongKennels 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that all of this information is un-verfiable, can we please not start with the arguments again? Work together to remove any information from the history proposal that cannot be verified per Wikipedia's policy. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the history sections of other breeds of dog, the relative youth of this breed is, and the vitriolic debate over unverifiable material, I suggest a radical reduction in the history section of this article. To wit:

The breed was developed in the United States in the second half of the 20th century.

I'd hope that everyone could aggree that that is an accurate statement (if not we can adjust it). We don't have to list every breeder's association, registry, or any other details. Wikipedia is a long-term project. In another ten years we may have more verifiable sources on this topic. Until such time as we do, let's stick to what we can agree on, even if that is very little. -Will Beback 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New Suggestion

The breed was developed in the United States in the second half of the 20th century.

Would this be considered acceptable? It keeps to the facts and gives the history of the breed:

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her stated goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. In 1990, Barber separated these dogs from the AKC and in 1991 started the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) as the official registry for the breed. SandraSS 17:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is something that everyone can agree to then I suggest using it. The extra details are not worth the grief. -Will Beback 18:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Will, editors from the ISSDC registries are not agreeing to this. This version doesn't acknowledge subsequent breed organizations, leaving the reader to conclude that there is only one registry for this breed, rather than four. We would prefer the single sentence that you proposed earlier over this. S Scott 18:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 18:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

S Scott - please provide independent verifiable proof that you have the authority to speak for the entities you mention above. I sure would hate to have this article done and then someone could pop up and say they didn't agree. Or, revert or add to it without prior discussion. CorinneCorfil 23:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

SandraSS, Would you be able to provide documentation showing that MaShiloh was a child from Germany? While I was privy to family history and facts, it was always stated that they were from Poland. Thank you. WindsongKennels 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WindsongKennels - hearsay - where is your piece of paper proving the above statement? Corinne Corfil 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Taken from http://www.shilohshepherds.info/intro.htm "For the past 35 years these dogs have undergone a very intense "re-creation" process started by Shiloh Shepherds™ Kennels, in New York. Tina Barber, originally a Schutzhund trainer with North American Schutzhund Association (NASA), was born and raised in Germany."
Taken from http://www.shilohshepherds.info/tinaBarberBio.htm "Since her childhood in Germany, Tina Barber has been involved with German Shepherd Dogs. After working with her family’s dogs in Germany as a child and continuing as a teenager in the US, she decided in 1962 at the age of 14 to form her own kennel, naming it Konigan Kennel." SandraSS 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, original research, not verifiable.

ShenandoahShilohs 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why that statement is such an issue for your group? It appears that anything suggested by anyone other than your group is not acceptable. SandraSS 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If we can't pin it down the exact country we can simply call it "Europe". -Will Beback 18:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Poland and Germany are neighboring countries. Tina's grandmother lived close to the border and did business frequently in both countries prior to World War II; the war intervened. Poland was conquered by Germany. After the war ended there were many displaced persons, among whom were Tina's family. Tina was born and raised in what was to become West Germany after World War II ended. Her mother and she immigrated to upstate New York in the late '50's. I have heard this from both Tina and her mother on separate occasions over the 9 years that I have known them. Think about it--if what you imply is true, that Tina was from Poland rather than Germany, how many people were able to immigrate to the US from communist countries (of which Poland was one) in the late'50's? It was the height of the Cold War.Trillhill 12:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Trillhill - this is similar to my family. My grandparents both paternal and maternal told us they came from Poland. However, in doing research via online ship documents and Ellis Island, I found one actually came from Russia and another from Germany. Corinne Corfil 23:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, for the record, I would agree to your original suggestion for now. Thank you for helping. WindsongKennels 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, one more attempt at taking everyone's proposals, tossing them in the blender and stripping out anything non-fact:

In 1974, Tina Barber began developing a unique line of German Shepherds. Her goal was to preserve the type of dog she remembered from her childhood; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful - similar to Chuck Eisenmann's dogs from The Littlest Hobo. She seperated her stock from the AKC in 1990.

In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was incorporated. Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until the SSDCA opened a Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive. During this time, The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. The SSDCA was reopened in 1998. Around the same time, the ISSDC opened their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr.

In 2001, the ISSDC and its registry were closed. The Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) was opened shortly after and assumed registry functions for the ISSDCr. The National Shiloh Breed Registry (NSBR) was established in 2001 and The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR) in 2002. In 2004, the ISSDC was reorganized as a parent club for the NSBR, the SSBA, and the TSSR.

As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries.

Thoughts? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me and you have worked really hard to keep it neutral...kudos to you! My only slight suggestion would be the 2nd paragraph seems just a little long..maybe start a new paragraph with sentence "In 2001, the ISSDC and its registry were closed......" followed by 4th paragraph "As with many breeds....." Thank you very much. MilesD. 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it looks better with that break :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jareth, I think it looks great. You did an awesome job taking in all points and making a very neutral, fair article. Thanks a bunch

ShenandoahShilohs 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It looks great, Jareth. Very neutral, and if anyone is interested in more information they can click on a link. NobleAcres 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This draft looks very good to me as well. Thank you for your continuing efforts to construct a non-biased article. Very much appreciated! Shiloh Supporter

Since it has been stated numerous times that information from personal websites is considered to be original research and POV, and therefore not allowed, could the verifiable, 3rd party source that was used in writing the above suggestion be provided? SandraSS 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandra - I agree with you. The current ISSDC states it is incorporated, so that may be independently verifiable, but the ISSDC is a club, not a registry. I am wondering if specifically the TSSR, NSBR, SSBA are similarly constituted? Surely, the proof isn't a website - either theirs OR HORRORS - Tina's timelines? Corinne Corfil 23:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a lot of factual information about the ISSD, SSBA, ISSDCr, NSBR, SSBA, and TSSR. Wow, what a mouthful. However, I would be curious as to what happened to the SSDCA and ISSR. Where are they now? I would also be interested in the factual information concerning Tina Barber.

In the first paragraph of the article, it mentions her developing a unique line of GSDs. Then, she sort of vanishes from the article as if though she ceased to exist. Where is she now and what is she doing?

Is she still involved in the development of her unique line of GSDs? If so, where does she stand on this issue? I guess what I'm asking is which registry and/or club does she officially endorse? Also, who gave the Shiloh Shepherd its name? Who came up with the breed standard?

I think they are fair questions seeing as they are directly related to the history of the Shiloh Shepherd. It would seem such facts would be quite pertinent to someone wanting to know more about the breed.

Carmen

It seems to me that these types of questions can be answered through the hyperlinks (to each of the various clubs/registries) at the bottom of the article. These provide the reader with the opportunity to seek additional info if they are so inclined. Thank you. MilesD. 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The following is under history section of the GSD article:

'The breed was originated by Captain Max von Stephanitz in the late 1800s and early 1900s. His goal was to breed an all-purpose working dog. The first registered GSD was Horand v. Grafrath [1]. Von Stephanitz admired the landrace herding dogs of his native Germany, and believed they had the potential to be all-purpose working dogs. Additionally, he was aware of the declining need for herding dogs and believed that the working abilities of the breed would decline unless it was put to other uses. Von Stephanitz created the Verein für Deutsche Schäferhunde [2], or SV as the official governing body for the breed. The SV then created the schutzhund trial as a breed test for the German Shepherd Dog, and prohibited the breeding of any dog which could not pass the trial. The schutzhund trial, along with the SV's conviction that "German Shepherd breeding is working dog breeding, or it is not German Shepherd breeding" led to a rapid development of the breed's abilities. After WWI, British and American soldiers, impressed by the abilities of the dog, brought home examples to breed. The breed instantly become popular, both as a family pet and as a working dog. To this day, the German Shepherd Dog is considered one of, if not the most intelligent and versatile breeds in existence.'

This is an example of a well-written, factual article on the history of a dog breed. I just wanted to point out that Captain Max von Stephanitz did not fade into thin air. I think EVERYONE would agree that he is an important part of the GSD's history. Furthermore, the article states "Von Stephanitz created the Verein für Deutsche Schäferhunde [2], or SV as the official governing body for the breed." It states his official position. Again, important to history. "The SV then created the schutzhund trial as a breed test for the German Shepherd Dog, and prohibited the breeding of any dog which could not pass the trial." I just found that rather interesting and pretty cool (don't know why). ;)

Carmen

I agree that the second paragraph is a bit long and confusing because of all the dates and acronyms. I am also concerned that the facts of which clubs/ registries are still active gets lost in the muddle of dates and letters. What about this:

In 1991, The Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA, Inc.) was incorporated. Shilohs were originally registered through the FIC until the SSDCA opened a Shiloh-only registry, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR). Due to significant differences of opinion, other club/registries were later established. The history of these registries can be seen in the following table:

SSDCA: 1991-1997, 1998-Present, founded by Tina Barber

     ISSR (registry for SSDCA): 1992-Present

ISSDC: 1997-2001 founded by ____

     ISSDCr (registry for ISSDC) 1998 - ____

USSDCR: 2001-2003, founded by ___ SSBA: 2001-2004, founded by ____ NSBR: 2001-2004, founded by ___ TSSR: 2001-2004, founded by ___ New ISSDC: 2004-Present, founded by _____

** When it reopened in 2004, the ISSDC became the parent club of the SSBA, NSBR and TSSR

I just thought this was easier to follow. Of course, the blanks need to be filled in and the spacing should be cleaned up, but you get the idea. 204.72.116.12 21:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Katy C, SSDCA member

Somehow in the actual posting my "table" ran together. Each club/registry was supposed to have its own line. Sorry about the mess! 204.72.116.12 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Katy C, SSDCA member

Jareth, thanks for your work on the latest history draft. It's NPOV and verifiable. I can go with it. S Scott 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New Picture added?

I see a new picture has been added to the article. My question is this: What is the reason for the commentary underneath? In viewing other dog articles on the Wiki site, there doesn't appear to be self-promoting dialogue under them or when you "click to enlarge". If additional pictures are to be added, I think it would better serve the article if it were an example of a smooth coat. SandraSS 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, such commentary should be on the picture's page, not in the article. I've updated this comment to be something more apropriate and in line with the dog project's standards. - Trysha ^(talk) 17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Trysha; I copied that without looking very hard at the caption (oops). It would be very nice to have a smooth coated example as well -- as it stands, the pictures appear to be quite similar and probably not a good representation since there are so many varieties. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Poster MilesD. has stated numerous times that any changes made to this article are to be brought to this page first for discussion and consensus of all editors. Poster MilesD. submitted the 2 new pictures that are now showing in the article. These pictures were added without the knowledge or consensus of the other editors involved with this article. Once again, I am asking that they be removed. SandraSS 08:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

When the ESSR link was added to the article, an ISSDC supporter stated that it was done without discussion on this page and asked that it be removed. When the Health section of this article was edited, an ISSDC supporter stated that it was done without discussion on this page and asked that it be removed. Now, there have been 2 pictures of what appears to be ISSDC dogs added to this article without discussion on this page. I think it only fair that they be removed since their addition was not discussed here. Thank you SandraSS 13:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Addressing the addition of two pictures: The first was added as this dog was the first ever Shiloh Shepherd to be ARBA's #1 dog. Since ARBA was the first organization to recognize the Shiloh Shepherd breed, and all Shilohs are judged per Tina's breed standard, that accomplishment by this dog is historical. His existence and record are verifiable by a third party source, ARBA.

The second dog was offered when the admins asked for a smooth coat representative. He is a retired beautiful smooth coated Shiloh that was ISSR registered and an ISSR National Select.He is even pictured on your groups web site.

No one ever asked for the removal of the first pictured Shiloh, as pictures are just that, they are not written word with links to personal web sites. The items that you have listed that had been asked for removal were due to the fact they were either not verifiable, and/or also had direct links to personal POV websites.

Many dog related articles have a number of pictures, rather than battling over three nice looking Shilohs why not add another picture of your liking to the pages.

ShenandoahShilohs 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, the ESSR link was not removed because I requested it (See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_3#ESSR); I simply relocated it in the article and requested verification re: its existence and independence from other already linked registries (and never received a response from the editor who questioned its relocation). Jareth then removed it, because it did not meet Wiki policy and she noted in her removal: "Registries - rm ESSR link; nothing but homepage under construction, please re-add when verified".

Re: the health section, again it was not removed because of my request (In fact, I was pretty much told to "take a hike" when I suggested it...which is okay as there was lots of stress those couple of days for all of us) It wasn't removed until a few days later by Jareth, following other's complaints that the health links added to the article contained information that was not verifiable nor NPOV and which contained information which was derogatory toward other registries/club.

These two photos are of pedigreed Shiloh Shepherd Dogs, one of which happens to be the #1 ARBA Rare Breed Dog for 2005 (a beautiful ambassador for this breed) and one who happens to be a retired 1998 ISSR National Select dog (another great representative for this breed, whose photo was submitted after the first photo and after Jareth suggested a smooth-coated Shiloh photo would be nice to include also).

If this is really important, I suggest that maybe a concerned editor could submit another photo for additional inclusion...I think a photo of Shiloh puppies would be great...and I would support that submittal. Thank you. MilesD. 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lakota - ISSR Champion and ISSR National Select 1998 (smooth-coat)

See: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/98champs.htm

See: http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohChampions.htm

He is a beautiful example of a Shiloh Shepherd smooth-coated dog, and obviously approved as such by the ISSR, when chosen as a National Select in 1998.

Harley - ISSDC Champion, Grand Victor, ARBA #1 Rare Breed Dog 2005

He is a beautiful example of Shiloh Shepherd plush-coated dog

Dog in "breed box" - ISSR dog - Also, another very beautiful Shiloh Shepherd plush-coated dog.

All three are beautiful Shiloh Shepherds and fine representatives of the breed.

If there are objections to the inclusion of any/all of these dogs, the specific reason should be stated why that photo of that particular "dog" is a problem (is the photo not neutral or verifiable), not simply because one or another "group" submitted their photos for inclusion or the because the humans affiliated with those dogs belong to one club/registry or another. I really don't think these wonderful dogs themselves really care about such things.

Also, the debates re: the ESSR and the Health section had less to do with inclusion and a lot more to do with verifiability, neutrality, original research and independence (i.e. the ESSR as a registry separate from the ISSR)

See: .http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapTheRegistry.htm

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_3#ESSR

See Administrator's reason for removal "Registries - rm ESSR link; nothing but homepage under construction, please re-add when verified"

Thank you. MilesD. 16:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

D Miles - perhaps you could clarify for me what the concern is about inclusion of the GTF in the health section of the article? The only one who responded to my prior query was Jareth. Corinne Corfil 23:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Corfil, I think what is wrong with the "GTF" page is simply that it falls under ORIGINAL RESEARCH In addition to falling under the "original research" umbrella there is no validation of these numbers. I am curious though, are these numbers made up of just ISSR registered Shilohs or both ISSR and ISSDC affiliated? Perhaps this should be included too (there's no validation of these numbers either and I present this for illustration purposes) Health Survey Gwyllgi 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Gwyllgi - it is okay to call me by my name, Corinne, that is why I sign my posts here that way. I want people to know who am I here. Interesting webiste you link there. Sure hope that no copyrighted (did I get the correct word this time?) is on there......

A couple of comments - if the timeline in any version of the breed history section is accurate, the ISSDCr is defunct and has been for a while. A club is NOT the same as a registry. It is my understanding that the ISSDC in its recent incarnation chose NOT to be involved in registry matters because of rules and conflict that can result. Am I incorrect? Has the ISSDC now become a registry? If the ISSDC is not a registry then it is misleading to say the least to say issdcshilohs - where does that leave the TSSR, NSBR and SSBA?

Regarding the GTF Health Survey and the validity of its data. Some folks who have posted here were present during Dr Padgett's presentation at Home Coming several years ago. Are they now questioning the validity of the work he presented? The documents that support the data are in the possession of the SSDCA Inc Executive Board. I personally spent close to $200 in copying and postage to mail out the surveys and still do have the marked receipts for same. Were the GTF in the business of manufacturing the data, do you really think that we would have listed Fanconi Syndrome for Shilohs?

Again, if the non-ISSR entities do not wish the GTF and its Health Survey to be part of the article that relates to them, fine. But it IS an important aspect for those who are affiliated with the SSDCA Inc and have ISSR registered Shilohs and no agreement will be possible without it.

Corinne Corfil 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Corfil, providing links is not in breach of any copyright laws. So, I guess you then have no issues with the numbers presented then?

Not sure where exactly you're trying to go with your ISSDC questions. The ISSDC is simply the parent club of the TSSR/NSBR/SSBA registries (I believe the exact work I used was "ISSDC affiliated" rather than listing the three registries - but for clarity sake I'll ensure that I do going forward). You didn't answer the question on what shilohs were included in the survey - just ISSR or also NSBR/TSSR/SSBA shilohs.

Corfil, you could have spent a million dollars on your GTF survey. I do not question that much effort and cost may have gone into it. I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of your information. The fact of the matter is it is original research and against Wiki policy. If you want to put some health data in there, then perhaps you should think of asking the community here for OFA breed stats to be included, since that is indeed a neutral/unbiased/verifiable source of data that does not constitude "original research".

I am sorry, but there appears to be a lack of understanding of what is original research and the Wikipedia acceptance of such. That holds true whether it be an SSDCA document or an ISSDC document. Anyone could generate dozens of pages with whatever numbers are fit, but that does not make them acceptable here. Not sure why there's such a stumbling point over this, but hopefully we can collectively get past it and onwards to completion. Based on your statement "But it IS an important aspect for those who are affiliated with the SSDCA Inc and have ISSR registered Shilohs and no agreement will be possible without it." then this article will never be complete as there will be no breach of Wiki policy and accepting original research, which this document is (along with any self generated documents). I'm sure through links on the SSDCA website interested parties can be guided to the GTF from there. So is it your postion that this document will not be accepted without original research being inserted? Hopefully not. Gwyllgi 19:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Gwyllgi - Are you now a representative speaking for Wiki? Prior to Shenandoah Shilohs complaining, Jareth who I believe is affiliated with Wiki included the GTF in the health section. Because you cannot verify something does not make it invalid. Were you even around when the health survey was done? Have no clue, nor do I need to know who you are. IF I accepted this premise "then this article will never be complete as there will be no breach of Wiki policy and accepting original research, which this document is (along with any self generated documents", then I move that any reference to the TSSR, NSBR and SSBA be removed from the entire article because I cannot verify their existance other than from websites and self generated documents. Same argument you are using for the GTF holds water for that also.

My point regarding the website link you dropped earlier is this - the URL says issdcshilohs - where might I find such an animal as an issdcshiloh? No where have I seen a statement that the current ISSDC registers dogs as shilohs. Corinne

The reason the GTF link was included was because it contained statistical data on the incidence of certain health issues. Currently the health section states which issues are prevelent but provides no source to back up that assertation -- and as we've mentioned before, citing sources for facts is a good thing. Given Dr. Padgett's credentials and involvement in health surveys for numerous breeds, he would be a good third-party source for health data. Its unfortunate that people demanded the citation be removed, in opposition to Wiki-policy simply because of the registry associated with commissioning the survey. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"All three are beautiful Shiloh Shepherds and fine representatives of the breed."

That is debatable since there is question whether the dogs associated with the ISSDC registries are in fact, genuine Shiloh Shepherds. Qwerty101

Before anyone casts desparaging remarks about whether or not of any of the dogs photographed within this article are genuine Shiloh Shepherds, I personally would suggest that they look at the pedigrees of the dogs in question and examine their lineage. I have, and I agree that all three dogs are beautiful representatives of the Shiloh Shepherd breed. Dartagnan 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Another picture issue

The picture that's currently in the breed infobox, Image:Plushcoatshilohshepherd.jpg, is a copyrighted photo that's not for free distribution. This is generally against Wikipedia policy, and since we've got both this plush-coat image and this smooth-coat image as free-distribution photos, I need to move one of them into the infobox when the current one is deleted from Wikipedia. Should I just pick one of the two based on which I think is a better photo? Elf | Talk 23:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Elf, the photo has been in the breed infobox Image:Plushcoatshilohshepherd.jpg, was chosen by the original author of the article. Permission to freely use the image was given at that time. With all of the controversy over the article and the fact that it was locked from editing for the past almost two months, I did not think we could add or change pictures. You have my permission to use the photo. If there is something else that needs to be done with it, please let me know. Trillhill 03:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's been on wikipedia for over 2 years, but the image page states that "this image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use." Because general terms of wikipedia *do* include 3rd-party use, we either need to remove the photo and replace it with one that allows it, or get the permission changed; choices primarily include:

GFDL
public domain
copyrighted but with no rights reserved (that text would read "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author.")

Are you saying that you're the creator of Image:Plushcoatshilohshepherd.jpg and are willing to change its licensing agreement? If so, that's great; you can see the specific tags that can be applied to that photo here. Or let me know and I can do it. (I'm an admin and active in the dog breeds area, so I'm certainly being very careful about editing the page only as needed. That's why I asked about the photo instead of just doing it!) Elf | Talk 04:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Elf, I took the photo of the plush coated Shiloh that has been used for this article for the past two years. (It was actually taken specifically for use with this article.) You have my permission to change the tags. Thank you very much. Trillhill 12:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

For the Record --

For the record, in Archive 3,

"Reply by Shiloh Supporter:

TB said "Your *free* shilohs forum has 272 members http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shilohs/ Our "private" community forum has 1058!! http://shilohshepherds.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=439608064"

The ISSDC affiliated "Yahoo Shilohs Group" ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shilohs ) has 272 very active members, whereas the Shiloh Shepherd Friends group on http://shilohshepherds.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x lists a supposed 1058 members, even though it's become a well known fact that anyone who joins the list 'cannot unsubscribe'. The SSFriends list only seems to have 6-10 regular users, as can be verified by subscribing to this group."

I am the administrator of the Shiloh Shepherd Friends bulletin board. We are now up to 1091 members. While people who join the list cannot unsubscribe, they can ask me as the administrator to be removed as only one or two people have in the past. I have immediately removed them. The invitation is open to all of you who are members of our forums (many of you seem to read them very frequently). If you so desire, I will be happy to remove you from our list. Trillhill 13:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The SSFriends list only seems to have 6-10 regular users, as can be verified by subscribing to this group."

^ I find this comment to be false. What is your definition of regular users? Weekly? Monthly? I consider regular as monthly. A lot of us just don't have all day to spend on the computer. We do have lives outside the Shiloh world. It does not mean we don't care or support Tina. I am one of those people. I know there is definitely more than 10 regulars that post per month. I have had to limit my computer time to maybe Fri, Sat. or Sat. because of personal stuff in my life. I have to be selective on my time and posts. There are many others like me. I find it absurd that I have to spend what little time I have defending comments like this. I hope you all can keep your comments on topics that really matter and can restrain from false accusation. 67.189.55.195 07:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)RoseCity Shilohs-Shiloh fan Irene

I apologize for having made this statement. It was in response to comments on the 1000 plus members of the SSF community, and ultimately holds no relevance toward the completion of the Wiki article. Shiloh Supporter

SSDCA Executive Board Response to Wiki Archive 7 and Proposal for Article

In archive seven, it was written:

"In 1997, the SSDCA was inactive for a year. During that time, then SSDCA Vice-President, Gary Allison, accepted responsibility for running a club for the breed and so the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC) was created. In 1998, due to a disagreement with the ISSR rules, the ISSDC annouced they would open their own registry, calling it the ISSDCr. The SSDCA reopened at this time."

Jareth asked " I almost forgot. Since we mentioned the ISSRs number of registrations, can we get that info for the other registries as well?"

We have prepared an updated report. Please view http://www.shilohshepherds.info/numbers.htm. If you need any addtional details, please let us know.

Someone wrote "..over the past 2 decades a lot of "registries" have been started for "new/rare breeds" but none of them (that I know of) have done so without a Breed Standard. In my experience, I have also heard of a "new" group splinting off from the original because they did not agree on the Breed Standard being used, and would then write their own ... that may or may not be recognized by others, but I have always seen these things progress decently & in order! http://www.petplace.com/dogs/breed-clubs/page1.aspx Please note There are breeds that end up with two clubs who disagree on breed function, or breed standards, and choose to register their breed with different registries. The breed standard set for a specific breed with the AKC may not be the same as with the UKC, not only because the registries may differ in their criteria, but also because more than one breed club may have existed, thereby creating two different breed philosophies of form and function. One club (be it National Breed Club or organized fancy group) may have divided and chosen different paths, such as with the famous Jack Russell Terrier also known as the Parson Russell Terrier, depending on to which registry your referring."

We would like to encourage the "other" registries to povide their own breed standard if they want to be listed on the Wiki along with the ISSR! The use of our breed standard constitutes a copyright violation. Please note the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Debbie Knatz, one of our board members, posted

"1. You said "In 1997, the SSDCA became inactive for a year" then went on to talk about the various other registries starting up, closing down, etc. Could you please mention that the SSDCA was reopened (and when) and that it has been in continued existence ever since?

2. You've asked for registration numbers from the other registries, but by looking at the lists of breeders in the various registry websites you'll see that there are many breeder's who are affiliated with multiple registries. Since they are registering their dogs in more than one registry the totals you receive will be inaccurate because the same dogs will be counted over and over again. The same goes for the breeders, if they are affiliated with multiple registries, the number of breeders that are actually out there is artificially inflated and the general public won't get a true feel for how big (or small) these groups really are.

ISSDC - http://www.shilohs.org/ISSDC/ISSDCPageBreederProfiles.htm TSSR - http://www.shilohshepherdtssr.com/breeders.htm NSBR - http://www.shilohregistry.com/breeders.html SSBA - http://www.shilohshepherd.org/breeders.html

The ISSR is the only registry that does not allow dual registration so you will not find any of the breeders who are in good standing with the ISSR listed on any of the other registry websites. Here is the link to our Licensed Breeder list: http://www.shilohshepherds.org/licensedBreeders.htm If you DO find any of our breeders listed with the other registries please let us know, because as Ricky said, "Lucy, you got some splainin to do!" :-)"

The SSDCA Excutive Board members would still like to suggest that the Wiki include an honest representation regarding the numbers.

The board would also recommend, as Tina suggested, that the "History" Section be divided into three parts:

1. Breed History 2. Club History 3. Registry History

We would make the suggestion that Section One (Breed history) just focus on what constituted the start as well as the decades of development that went into these dogs prior to 1990. All of this can be easily gleaned from

--The history of the Shiloh Shepherd http://www.shilohshepherds.org/kennelof.htm

--What is a Shiloh Shepherd (article written and published in 1990) http://www.shilohshepherds.info/whatIsAShilohShepherd.htm

--Shiloh History Timeline http://www.shilohshepherds.info/shilohHistory.htm

Section two (Club history) can detail the start of the of the SSDCA as the parent club for FIC in 1990, its incorporation in 1991, cover the split in 1997 and mention the the original ISSDC's formation and demise and the formation of the new ISSDC in mid 2004. The section might also mention some of the clubs' accomplishments. For example, in 2000-1 the SSDCA sponsored a health survey done in conjunction with Dr. George A. Padgett. The SSDCA's genetic task force also established an on-going health survey, database and web site. In 2005 through the efforts of club members a comprehensive illustrated breed standard was completed with over 70 illustrations prepared by Linda Shaw, a very well known canine artist. http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrShilohShepherdIllustratedBreedStandard.htm We would also like to invite the other club to share their documented accomplishments they have attained for the betterment of the breed.

Sources:

--SSDCA entity status: http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=1649897&p_corpid=1571122&p_entity_name=%53%68%69%6C%6F%68%20%53%68%65%70%68%65%72%64%20%44%6F%67%20%43%6C%75%62%20%6F%66%20%41%6D%65%72%69%63%61&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

--Club split and formation of the (first) ISSDC (includes original documents) http://www.shilohshepherds.info/clubSplit.htm.

Section 3 should just focus on the registry; its beginnings, the LMX program utilized in the formation of the ISSR computerized processing system via the TCCP, that has continued to add only ISSR registered dogs. The ISSR maintains an LMX/RC data base on over 45,000 documented ancestors in order to utilize this data to produce better dogs during the continued development of this breed, as well as incorporating this information for use within the Genetic Task Force in order to track various diseases prevalent in specific lines. Then the history can continue with dates of formation (and proper documentation of those dates) regarding all of the *other* registries ... including dates of closing where applicable!

References

--ISSR Timeline http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issrTimeline.htm

--NSBR website with reference to formation in 2001.

--TSSR website with reference to formation in 2002.

--SSBAR website with reference to formation in ?

We welcome your comments and look forward to the completion of this project. Ssdcaboard 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, can we please move forward rather than backward. The above proposal has been rehashed and rehashed ad nauseam. The continuos presentation of original research and bias POV will never reach concensus. Jareth has made a very good, fair, non-bias proposal that I would suggest we adopt.

ShenandoahShilohs 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Be glad to ShenandoahShilohs as soon as the non-ISSR entities provide non biased, non original research, non personal websites that prove the timeline and existance. The same requirements that many are asking for on the points made for the ISSR and SSDCA has to hold for everyone. Corinne Corfil 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's move forward, please

Rather than trying to expand on an article that will never reach concensus due to no verifiable information lets move forward. Can you comment on what part of Jareth's proposal you disagree with as this is the proposal we are trying to reach a concensus on? If it is the timeline of the differing club and registries please explain why. Jareth adopted the dates your group proposed, the rest agreed to those dates, viola, a concensus. This article could be filled with page after page of each parties POV, but that is not how Wiki bases it's articles and that is why each party has their own websites.

Many parties have already stated they agree with Jareth's recent proposal, if you find something in it that you disagree with, please share.

Jareth's proposal:

Alright, one more attempt at taking everyone's proposals, tossing them in the blender and stripping out anything non-fact:

As with many breeds, there are significant differences of opinion between the founding club/registry and subsequently established club/registries.

ShenandoahShilohs 17:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As has been requested numerous times already, please provide the verifiable, 3rd party source that was used to create the proposed article that only your group supports.

The only site(s) that I have seen that speaks of the Club/Registry timelines appear on Tina Barber's personal sites, which your group continually refer to as unverifiable, POV, and original research.

The personal websites of the ISSDC, NSBR, TSSR, SSBA are also unverifiable, POV, original research and cannot be used. SandraSS 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell us which dates you dispute and avoid commenting on other editors? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated previously, the dates started and the existence of the above entities have been given by your own group, all parties have accepted them, thus a concensus was reach. There are other sections of the article that are not verifiable such as the current existence of the ISSR. Per NYS records the ISSR is not an active Corporation. The TCCP has no business license or Corporation filing per the Texas States web site. The date Tina started developing this breed or her goals. In each instance parties offering the info, and the other parties involved have agreed, thus a concensus. By finding a common ground that all parties can agree with is how adults resolve issues, it is called a concensus.

ShenandoahShilohs 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree to add one or two more sentences at the end of the most recent proposal that brings the history up to the present? It currently sounds as though Tina Barber is no longer involved in the breed's development when that is clearly not the case, and if we want this article to be factual, erasing her from the ongoing development is misleading at best.

"Today the Shiloh Sheperd continues as a breed underdevelopment. The SSDCA breeds according to the regulations of their club under the guidance of Tina Barber, and the ISSDC breeds according to their own regulations under the guidance of _______."

I really think it's wrong to leave Tina out of the article for anything mentioned after 1974. She has been and continues to be central to the development of the breed. 206.103.218.139 19:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Katy C, SSDCA member

If suggestions are made with a good-faith willingness and a commitment to find and respect common grounds and a neutral, verifiable portrayal of Shiloh Shepherd history and all registries/clubs, as clearly demonstrated in Jareth's proposal, then I do think it might be possible to discuss at least part of these suggestions. But, frankly, for me it would be a waste of time, to try to discuss and reconcile this addition and then be told that is not enough again to reach consensus. Perhaps the editor making this suggeston could elaborate if there are any other objections he/she has to the proposal or if he/she supports it otherwise. Thank you. MilesD. 02:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Katy's comment. RoseCity Shilohs-Shiloh fan Irene

I can see how the current wording might make it appear Tina was either no longer involved. Perhaps at the end of the first paragraph since that's where we're talking about the history in relation to the breed founder; it might seem a bit out of place in with all the registry information. What about something like: "She seperated her stock from the AKC in 1990 and still participates in the development of the breed. Tina is the President and Breed Warden of the SSDCA, Inc."? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jareth. "She seperated her stock from the AKC in 1990 and still participates in the development of the breed. Tina is the President and Breed Warden of the SSDCA, Inc."? I can agree with the latest proposal of the history with this addition. 204.72.116.12 21:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Katy C

I hate to stir the waters, but I noticed that I was listed as the "breed warden" for the SSDCA (that's the club) ... the ISSR is the registry and both Lisa (my daughter) and I share that role (as breed warden) but we also have an active GTF force that is consulted, as well as the club BOD, regarding final breeding decisions! I just wanted to say that, because we all have one goal .. the future welfare of this breed .. and some people would like others to think that this "breed' is a done deal .. when it's still far from it! We (the SSDCA members & the ISSR) are all working very hard to make sure that our goals (my original vision) for this "breed" can survive! MaShiloh 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually got the President and Breed Warden information here [1]. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How would it be to use "Ms. Barber," rather than Tina? Sounds more "dressed up" for an official document. S Scott 22:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 22:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this addition to the end of the first paragraph of Jareth's recent proposal.

ShenandoahShilohs 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me. Thank you. MilesD. 21:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thank you for your time and efforts Jareth. Dartagnan 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe consensus is around the corner! I would agree to that addition to Jareth's proposed draft.--iamgateway 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a decent compromise - no one is getting everything they wanted, and everybody is getting some of what they wanted. I'm for it. S Scott 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I too am in agreement including the addition requested for the end of the first paragraph. Gwyllgi 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great. The whole section looks great. Thanks to everyone for their hard work in bringing this together. NobleAcres 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okie dokie, its moved over. I did change it to Ms. Barber per S Scott's suggestion -- that does sound more formal. It would be helpful if everyone could weigh in now on any other disputes they have with the articles current content so we can move towards removing that ugly disputed tag :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the new version! Thank you Jareth, for everything. Shiloh Supporter

I support the new version! Looks great! Thanks all! WindsongKennels 06:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No one from the ISSR/SSDCA group has agreed to this version of the history section that I can see, therefore, consensus among all editors has not been reached. Why has it been moved over to the history section of the article? SandraSS 00:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the editor who signs as Katy did, but regardless, the majority of editors involved in this discussion that have been working on resolving the history dispute for months now appear to be in agreement. The only concern you have raised is that POV sources are being used and you have not provided any evidence nor clarified what, if anything, you dispute in this version. If you have concerns about the version currently posted, please discuss them. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The only editors that have agreed to this version are members of the ISSDC group, with one exception. There have been numerous ISSR/SSDCA editors involved from the beginning that have not, to my knowledge agreed to this version.

There is information being allowed in this article that is original research but yet, other information that is important to the history of the breed is not being allowed. I just don't get it. Either any and all original research is acceptable in this article or no original research is acceptable in this article. SandraSS 00:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide what part of the current history section you feel is original research? Or suggest additions you'd like to see to the history article? Something needed to go in the history -- if everyone would really prefer to go to the "This breed was developed in the latter 20th century" as the history since everyone can agree, we can start discussing that again.

If there's nothing currently in the history section that you disgree with, just the lack of information, lets talk about adding that information in. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Before I get into this, could you give me the link that shows what userids have been blocked? SandraSS

Of course. There's the list and also a block log. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :)

OK, to begin with, pretty much everything in that article is original research. The true history of the Shiloh Shepherd cannot be told without using information from Tina's websites. There simply is no other comprehensive source.

A long time ago I suggested this for the article as it follows the GSD history section:

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. Those dogs were big, mentally sound, and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her dogs from the AKC and in 1991 created the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) (based on Von Stephanitz's SV) as the official governing body for the breed.

This states who developed these dogs, where and when. It states the breed founders intended goal/vision. It also gives credit to the original registry, the ISSR, which, from 1991 up until 1997 was the ONLY registry in existence for these dogs. I think that is important history.

This was deemed not acceptable for various reasons, the biggest being that the other registries were not mentioned. They are not mentioned because their existence 10 years later had nothing to do with the history of these dogs.

Then recently, Will Beback suggested to keep it simple. He stated in part that there was no need to mention every breeders association, registry or any other details.

I then suggested this version:

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her stated goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered as a child in Germany. In 1990, Barber separated these dogs from the AKC and in 1991 started the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) as the official registry for the breed.

Again, it states who, where, when and why. Von Stephanitz started the SV as the official registry for his dogs and Tina Barber started the ISSR as the official registry for her dogs. I mentioned this before, the GSD page and other dog breed articles on Wiki do not list, in the history of the breed section, every registry that registers the particular breed. It sticks to the "history" of the breed.

Now here is another version that incorporates what I previously wrote with what you suggested.

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered from her childhood; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her stock from the AKC and in 1991 started the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) as the official registry for the breed.

As this breed is still considered under development by its founder, Tina Barber remains the Breed Warden for the ISSR in partnership with her daughter.''

SandraSS 02:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As clarification, the context for the single sentence for the history is this:

"After reviewing the history sections of other breeds of dog, the relative youth of this breed is, and the vitriolic debate over unverifiable material, I suggest a radical reduction in the history section of this article. To wit: 'The breed was developed in the United States in the second half of the 20th century.'"

The editor continues: "I'd hope that everyone could aggree that that is an accurate statement (if not we can adjust it). We don't have to list every breeder's association, registry, or any other details. Wikipedia is a long-term project. In another ten years we may have more verifiable sources on this topic. Until such time as we do, let's stick to what we can agree on, even if that is very little."

This proposal does not suggest leaving out some of the organizations; it suggests leaving out all of them and going with the single sentence. S Scott 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)S ScottS Scott 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Shiloh Shepherd was developed by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds Kennel in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. Her goal was to preserve the type of German Shepherd she remembered from her childhood; dogs who are good family companions, exceptionally intelligent, mentally sound, big and beautiful. In 1990, Barber separated her stock from the AKC and in 1991 started the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) as the official registry for the breed.

As this breed is still considered under development by its founder, Tina Barber remains the Breed Warden for the ISSR in partnership with her daughter.

SandraSS 02:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the above statement. 67.186.153.43 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Katy Schuele

Some time back, it was established that the ISSDC and the three registries would be included in any history section. S Scott 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)S Scott

If we're talking about just expanding the first paragraph and not replacing the entire history, I'd suggest a couple of wording changes to keep the NPOV tone we're working so hard on.

In 1990, Barber separated her stock from the AKC and in 1991 started the International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR) as a registry for the breed.
Barber considers the breed to still be under development and remains the Breed Warden for the ISSR in partnership with her daughter.

Maybe the other registries could also suggest additional factual information that could be added to the other sections -- or perhaps we could consider greatly expanding the section and seperating into breed history, club history and registry history? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those 2 statements are a step in the right direction, Jareth. SandraSS

Its been suggested that "In 1997 the SSDCA became inactive." be changed to something like "In 1997 the SSDCA agreed to cease operations for a year." -- it would also probably need some explanation of why they agreed to step aside for a time, but I'm not sure how to put that. Thoughts, suggestions? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been unable to find a reference that cites this -- since we can't agree on why the SSDCA closed, I suggest we just leave it stating that they closed like we've done with everything else. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems there are so many conflicting views about this event, I think we should just leave the statement as it is "In 1997, the SSDCA became inactive". It's neutral and just states that an event occurred, without the conflicting interpretations of its details. Thank you. MilesD.

Health Survey

Perhaps this should be included too (there's no validation of these numbers either and I present this for illustration purposes) Health Survey Gwyllgi 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. You have taken information from the ISSR's GTF and placed it into your own "survey". Someone who doesn't know any better would actually believe the "ISSDC" dogs are less afflicted than the "non-ISSDC' dogs. For clarity sake, perhaps it should be made clear how many dogs are actually recorded in the "ISSDC" group compared to how many dogs are recorded in the "non-ISSDC" group. Of course, you also have to factor in how many of the ISSDC dogs are actually GSDs, as that makes a difference. Qwerty101

The original ISSR health survey was prepared for Dr. George Padgett!! He provided the results!! I am sorry that he is no longer with us, but I can't see any reason why HE would *fake* information!! Since that time we have continued to collect data .. both verifiable (with vet documentation) and UNverifiable (just presented by the owners) and continued to add this data to our reports!! I honestly think that this provides a good (as clear as possible) picture of what our dogs have ... don't have ... as far as diseases are concerned!! If the ISSDC wants to share their data reports too .. that FINE .. but let's not deny our breed (and all of those that DID put in so much effort into the GTF) the right to present our data to the world!! MaShiloh 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Obvious

In my opinion we won't come to any agreements. If we can't adopt Jareth's proposal which was well thought out and presented all parties in a fair light, I think we should go with Will Beback proposal from January 27. My only edit there would be to change "second half" to "last quarter." WindsongKennels 00:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The breed was developed in the United States in the second half of the 20th century.

I have already posted my personal approval of Jareth's proposal. However, if Jareth's proposal remains contested and we need to compromise with Will's brief proposal, it makes far more sense to state the "last quarter of the 20th century". Another option would be to state the actual year. Ultimately, it would be really nice to see more than a single sentence describing our breed. Shiloh Supporter

Tina fostered the Shiloh Shepherd and the ISSR is the breed registry. This is where the REAL Shiloh comes from. Any Shiloh standards come from this, not any other organization, people, etc.69.110.141.168 02:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Shiloh Supporter in Calif

Jareth's draft

I have been extremely busy lately, but after reviewing Jareth's new draft, I think it is an very good, unbiased and an accurate revision that can be agreed on by all sides. I can tell the work that went into it. Very good, Jareth and thank-you for an obviously well thought out and neutral article. It is an revision and excellent for consensus. ---iamgateway

I too have been extremely busy with homework so I haven't been able to post, but have kept up with the reading. Jareth has done an excellent job of giving compromise to both sides. Suzy G. 03:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Jareth's draft is excellent. Thank you for all your effort.Saginaw 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives